Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for coming all this way with Stoic :) THE BANNER SAGA IS NOW LIVE
Here's the launch trailer
Happy gaming! Backers can email community@stoicstudio.com if they need help getting their keys. Thank you again everyone!

Game length

(Re)reading the FAQ, it states that the game won't be a "short 2-hour fling", and that the length will depend on the funds raised. Well, not that we know how much money's in the jar, how long will the singleplayer be? I'm just asking out of curiosity. A vague estimate would be nice, if only for discussion.

Yes. I feel like with most strategy turn-based combat (see: Vandal Hearts, Final Fantasy Tactics, Tactics Ogre, etc), battles themselves will be a big timesink. Exquisitely-tuned and interesting strategy turn-based combat will be a big but incredibly rewarding and enjoyable timesink, before we even get into any of the other gameplay systems or storyline.

Predicated on that alone, i'm willing to bet we'd have plenty of game to sink our teeth into.

Alex mentioned elsewhere that they are aiming at about 10 hours per episode, though that is only tentative and not a promise.

Wow, that would be really awesome. I do like the idea of episodic story telling. It's kind of like how Mass Effect has been. And more recently the Walking Dead game on consoles. It just seems like a great way to tell a story over time. You really get invested in the characters that way.

The caveat with episodic games is that the series might not get completed, which would by annoying if the last episode ended on a cliff hanger (like Half-Life 2: Episode 2...). The Mass Effect games were kind of lucky.

I'm happy Stoic said that the first chapter of The Banner Saga will be a complete game on its own.

As someone with far too much free time on her hands, 10 hours per part actually sounds kinda short. I could finish that in a day! That said, no matter how many hours it ends up being, I have full faith and confidence that they will be glorious ones.

The other thing to consider is re-playability. If the story can be effected significantly by your decisions, then you could play it again making different decisions and have a very different play experience; which in turn could effectively double or triple game length. I'm definitely looking forward to that possibility.

The other thing to consider is re-playability. If the story can be effected significantly by your decisions, then you could play it again making different decisions and have a very different play experience; which in turn could effectively double or triple game length. I'm definitely looking forward to that possibility.

If Stoic, with their limited possibilities would manage to pull of that kind of re-playability, I would be more than delighted.
I think that might be a little bit of a stretch though, especially considering that the first chapter will launch at the end of the year. But hell, I've got no idea of the limitations in game development, maybe they'll pull it off

I would however also be completely satisfied with the individual chapters having virtually no re-playability at all. I think that the idea of giving the player "as much choices as possible" is not necessarily the best way of doing things, since there is always the danger of stretching your game content too thin.
What I look forward to the most in my single player experiences is a well-rounded, satisfying story and gameplay experience. If after 8 to 10 hours of the first chapter I'll be able to say "I really enjoyed that, looking forward to chapter 2!", then that's absolutely fine with me. No need to artificially extending the experience, if that development time could as well be put into polishing chapter 2&3.
After all there's still the multi player to enjoy. And what could provide more "re-playability" than a challenging match online?

If Stoic, with their limited possibilities would manage to pull of that kind of re-playability, I would be more than delighted.
I think that might be a little bit of a stretch though, especially considering that the first chapter will launch at the end of the year. But hell, I've got no idea of the limitations in game development, maybe they'll pull it off

I would however also be completely satisfied with the individual chapters having virtually no re-playability at all. I think that the idea of giving the player "as much choices as possible" is not necessarily the best way of doing things, since there is always the danger of stretching your game content too thin.

I think it's the other way around. A world with more choices and content/replayability is fat and good. Having a world with no choices and little extra/alternative content is a world that is too thin and anemic for an RPG, no matter how well it is written. Of course, a balance is needed. I don't think The Banner Saga should emulate Skyrim. Far from it, actually.

After all there's still the multi player to enjoy. And what could provide more "re-playability" than a challenging match online?

True, but a portion of The Banner Saga's players are not going to care about multiplayer. Additionally, the single-player does not require other people to play and will be more replayable than most other single-player games without emergent gameplay. Alex has mentioned in the Romances? thread that we will be able to control multiple character's actions, which leaves a lot of room for emergent narrative. I'll probably play the single-player game at least three times with different character personalities, if it's designed well.

A world with more choices and content/replayability is fat and good. Having a world with no choices and little extra/alternative content is a world that is too thin and anemic for an RPG, no matter how well it is written. Of course, a balance is needed. I don't think The Banner Saga should emulate Skyrim.

I absolutely understand where you are coming from, I'm just slightly concerned about the heavy emphasis on choices which a lot of modern RPGs seem to focus on.
The enjoyment I personally receive from RPGs (which are in their core story experiences) does not necessarily derive from the amounts of hours I can possibly put into playing it, but rather from the quality of the story, the way with which the individual story elements fall together to form a satisfying experience. I wouldn't want my favorite book-series to extend artificially. There needs to be enclosure, temperance. The equation of "more content/re-playability=more enjoyment" does not work for me personally. As you said, balance is the key.
Maybe my statement of "I don't need re-playability at all" was too extreme. That's probably because I really enjoy reading, and books naturally have a singular storyline. But games aren't book, are they now?

Like you, I love reading, but like I said elsewhere, in my opinion, videogames shouldn't emulate books or movies. They have to find their own way and grow up. And keep in mind that randomness is a way to create a story too ( just take a look at 4X games, like the often talked here KoDP).

I absolutely understand where you are coming from, I'm just slightly concerned about the heavy emphasis on choices which a lot of modern RPGs seem to focus on.
The enjoyment I personally receive from RPGs (which are in their core story experiences) does not necessarily derive from the amounts of hours I can possibly put into playing it, but rather from the quality of the story, the way with which the individual story elements fall together to form a satisfying experience. I wouldn't want my favorite book-series to extend artificially. There needs to be enclosure, temperance. The equation of "more content/re-playability=more enjoyment" does not work for me personally. As you said, balance is the key.
Maybe my statement of "I don't need re-playability at all" was too extreme. That's probably because I really enjoy reading, and books naturally have a singular storyline. But games aren't book, are they now?

I agree, the game doesn't necessarily need dozens of options for dialogue just for the sake of replayability. I care more about the quality of the story than the amount of hours I get out of it. I do enjoy the possibility of playing the same game again and getting different results for my actions, but many games lack a meaningful impact between the decisions and the replays usually end up being almost clones of each other with only thing changing being how my character reacts to some trivial news/occasions.

One other thing that I, quite recently, noticed is that I enjoy the "filler" dialogue quite a lot. I mean the kind that doesn't really get you anywhere and is there only to basically offer you a little more insight on the character/world/situation. I wish they would do more dialogue which was found in games like Baldur's Gate or even the old LucasArts adventure games. Just some random NPC ramblings. This new thing of three different options that started with Mass Effect, I think, is just plain cheap.

Actually i think valve was just bad at episodic gaming, its something i've seen work loads (telltale games successfully released three sam and max series episodically)

There have still been several games that were meant to be series that never got completed. Anachronox ended on a cliffhanger that was meant to be continued in an expansion which never arrived. The Alternate Reality series was meant to have five games, but only two were made.